LDS "world famous scholar" publishes book

Post by **_Tal Bachman** » Sun Jun 24, 2007 4:55 am

I posted this on postmormon.org a few days ago. Here it is for further debate, if it warrants it.

Dan Peterson, salaried Mormon propagandist, recently published a book: "Muhammad, Prophet of God".

The good news is that Peterson finally decided to take a break from wasting his professional life defending a sociopathic charlatan. The bad news is, he just went and found another sociopathic charlatan to defend. Why such intense attraction to sociopathic charlatans? Hmmmmm...Hopefully I forget soon that D. Michael Quinn referred to "certain" apologists as "sociopaths", and that not one department head of America's top five Near Eastern Studies programs had ever heard of "the world famous NES scholar" in question - including the department head of the very program he got his Ph.D in! (UCLA) If I don't, I might start thinking that perhaps birds of a feather...no - impossible.

It's kind of surprising that Peterson saw fit to accord the title "prophet of God" to his other favourite sociopathic charlatan, just like he does is number one favourite. What next - "Jim Jones, Prophet of God"? I don't see why not. Jim Jones was a serial adulterer just like Joseph Smith, devised increasingly bizarre and extreme loyalty tests just like Joseph Smith, boasted as much as Joseph Smith, claimed total sovereignty over every aspect of his deluded followers' lives, liberty, and property just like Joseph Smith, tried to build and enforce a Utopia in which all things were in common just like Joseph Smith, was as ruthless in quashing leadership challenges as was Joseph Smith, was totally paranoid just like Joseph Smith...it is not so far-fetched to imagine that if a non-affiliated Peterson had been living in the Bay Area 35 years ago, that the People's Temple might have gotten him rather than Mormonism.

Don't laugh - the truth is, that anyone who can believe that Joseph Smith and Muhammad were actually "holy men", when their behaviour was identical to any conscienceless, power hungry man's behaviour, would have no real grounds for ruling anyone out. Joseph Smith, Muhammad, Jim Jones, David Koresh...they all sort of blur together after while. Anything can happen once you kind of start losing it, but don't know you are...your ability to think can really be affected. We all know that. Now. You can miss the most obvious things...

One example:

Last year, Peterson decided it would be a good idea to publish a negative review of Carl Sagan's primer on critical versus magical thinking "Demon Haunted World" in his church propaganda organ, thus explicitly (if, somehow, inadvertently) equating belief in Mormonism with belief in leprechauns, alien rape abductions, and giant monsters who live in your garage - but only when you're not there.

Anyway, it is very strange - the world famous scholar's book on Muhammad, only two hundred and thirty eight thousand, three hundred and forty three places out of first place on the Amazon sales chart, wasn't published by any university press, or any mainstream publishing company. It was published by a religious publishing outfit called Eerdman's.

Never heard of them? Ah - well, you should visit the website: http://www.eerdmans.com/shop/product.as ... 0802804457 Eerdman's is the proud publisher of The Four Major Cults: Christian Science, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, Seventh-day Adventism, by one Anthony Hoekema.

Given its publishing of "Satanic" anti-Mormon literature, Eerdman's seems like a strange choice of business partner for any Mormon propagandist. But what can "strange choice" mean to someone who defends a Mormon testimony by referencing Kuhnian paradigms, publishes articles advancing the blatantly false claim that it was never church doctrine that the Native Americans were the blood descendants of Lehi, and concludes that the Old Testament is a "re-imagination" of Israelite history because of what all the archaeological findings show (no irony there, right?).

One last strange thing: though it was published four months ago, with review copies no doubt sent out some months earlier than that, several google searches failed to find any evidence of any reviews of "Muhammad, Prophet of God".

Once again - hmmmmm....

Post by **_Polygamy Porter** » Sun Jun 24, 2007 5:08 am

Ya don't say... huh...

http://www.amazon.com/Muhammad-Prophet- ... 0802807542

These Muslims are great people, even though they are not members of "The Church"...

Oh and lookie at the lone comment on his book:

By: a light in the darkness, April 13, 2007

We have been so quick to come up with descriptions of Islam when we know nothing about the religion or it's origins. Terrorists may make up a very radical sect of Islam, but most Moslems are anything but violent and rather put a very high value on human life. Dr. Peterson does a great job, and in an extremely concise and understandable manner, of letting the non-Muslim see the faith as it is and not as the headlines wish to paint Islam. This is a book we need more than we need to make people enemies, and after doing such use, use any horrible words we can think up to slur them.
Muslims are fine, wonderful people, they have their idiots as does any group. Thanks to Peterson for not letting the idiots on both sides, blind us.
For $12, buy it!

Why does that name "a light in the darkness" sound familiar? hmmmmmm

Post by **_Coggins7** » Sun Jun 24, 2007 5:30 am

This demagogic rant place Bachman squarely in the center of the classic anti-Mormon polemical tradition, right alongside the best and brightest intellectual charlatans the movement has ever produced.

Peterson is a first rate scholar who can hold his own anywhere, and he is, in fact, well known among his peers. Bachman is a Gen X slacker with pretensions to intellectual seriousness that both his Youtube video and this post demonstrate is as far from reality as Paris Hilton is from celibacy.

Try to enjoy the daylight.

Post by **_Mercury** » Sun Jun 24, 2007 5:34 am

Coggins7 wrote:
Peterson is a first rate scholar who can hold his own anywhere, and he is, in fact, well known among his peers.

When ya get done tossing danyboys salad let me know. Meanwhile heres something to think about.

Name recognition is everything. Peterson is unknown to the five top professionals in his field. His work nor his reputation extend as far as BYU.

When your done just let me know and we'll continue this conversation.

Post by **_Polygamy Porter** » Sun Jun 24, 2007 5:51 am

Mercury wrote:
Coggins7 wrote:
Peterson is a first rate scholar who can hold his own anywhere, and he is, in fact, well known among his peers.

When ya get done tossing danyboys salad let me know. Meanwhile heres something to think about.

Name recognition is everything. Peterson is unknown to the five top professionals in his field. His work nor his reputation extend as far as BYU.

When your done just let me know and we'll continue this conversation.

LOL and more Mormons know who Tal is than those who have even heard of Doctor Donut breath.. and yes, many of the Mormons think that Tal is still a faithful member... nothing wrong with that... nice little bear trap to step into!

_Ray A · Post by **_Ray A** » Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:16 am

Dan Peterson, Dan Peterson, Dan Peterson. Do you wank off to Dan peterson at night, or something?

Post by **_Polygamy Porter** » Sun Jun 24, 2007 5:27 pm

Ray A wrote:Dan Peterson, Dan Peterson, Dan Peterson. Do you wank off to Dan peterson at night, or something?

This coming from the born-again-mormon...

Post by **_Tal Bachman** » Sun Jun 24, 2007 6:25 pm

It is shocking now how stupid church defenders sound now - not to mention Coggins7 and Ray A by name or anything...

Perhaps it shouldn't surprise me that Coggins7 as a difficult time with reading comprehension; if he does not, perhaps he would enjoy explaining how the chief propagandist amongst Mormonism's propagandists can qualiy as "well known among his peers", while not one of the heads of America's top five departments in his small field has ever even heard of him. Would you like me to dig up the results of my email queries and post them here? Ah, but surely what is, could never make a dent in what some of us would like so desperately to believe. I'm sure it would be as much a waste of my time as even typing this post.

Of course, there is a potentially easy explanation for this "well known among his peers" claim - all Coggins has to do is define "his peers" to mean....(surprise!)...his "fellow Mormon propagandists" - and presto! He is "well known among his peers"! Thanks for that stunning refutation, Coggins. It must be fantastic not to have to rely on mere "intellectual pretensions" in attempting to explain the world...

Speaking of intellectual pretensions, you don't even need much intellect to see religious propagandists for what they are. All you really need to do is not be emotionally dependent on the religion in question, and/or be sane. Just something to keep in mind...

About that "praiseworthy and of good report" masturbation comment, I have to wonder what it really means that broken men like Ray A can't imagine any other possible motivation than homosexual attraction in the exposure of ridiculous frauds like Mormon propagandists. And I suppose for me to try to articulate what those other motivations might be would come across as "insensitive to alternative lifestyles". So, you can keep your mind on the gay stuff, Ray, no problem by me.

Lastly - speaking of gay, "light in the darkness"'s Amazonian fellating of DCP is friggin' HILARIOUS!. Come to think of it, maybe a giant gay clusterf*ck is the best image of all to explain the dynamic of (patently fraudulent) religious "alpha males" and their starry-eyed bitches, all sticking together reinforcing that they're all "absolutely right", impervious to any outside influence - like logic or evidence. Thanks Ray.

_Ray A · Post by **_Ray A** » Sun Jun 24, 2007 6:30 pm

Tal Bachman wrote:About that "praiseworthy and of good report" masturbation comment, I have to wonder what it really means that broken men like Ray A can't imagine any other possible motivation than homosexual attraction in the exposure of ridiculous frauds like Mormon propagandists. And I suppose for me to try to articulate what those other motivations might be would come across as "insensitive to alternative lifestyles". So, you can keep your mind on the gay stuff, Ray, no problem by me.

And I can't imagine why you - Tali-Bachman - are so obsessed with your former religion. Why don't you go make some more music - you might have hit number two.

Post by **_Tal Bachman** » Sun Jun 24, 2007 6:32 pm

Another brilliant, point by point refutation. Thanks Ray. You're doing the cult proud.